Existence of a $C_c^{infty}$ function $Phi$ s.t. $int nabla Phi neq 0.$











up vote
0
down vote

favorite
2













Let $Omegasubseteq mathbb R^n$ be open , bounded and connected set with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega)>0$. Let $Omega=Omega_1cupOmega_2$ where $Omega_1capOmega_2=emptyset$ with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)>0$ and $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_2)>0.$ Prove that $exists$ $Phiin C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ such that $displaystyle int_{Omega_1}nablaPhi(x)dxneq 0.$




Here $Phi$ is real valued function and $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ consists of all $C^{infty}(Omega)$ functions which have compact support in $Omega.$



I tried to show by contradiction and wished to have $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)=0 $ but couldn't be able to do that.



Any help is appreciated. Thank you.










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite
    2













    Let $Omegasubseteq mathbb R^n$ be open , bounded and connected set with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega)>0$. Let $Omega=Omega_1cupOmega_2$ where $Omega_1capOmega_2=emptyset$ with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)>0$ and $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_2)>0.$ Prove that $exists$ $Phiin C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ such that $displaystyle int_{Omega_1}nablaPhi(x)dxneq 0.$




    Here $Phi$ is real valued function and $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ consists of all $C^{infty}(Omega)$ functions which have compact support in $Omega.$



    I tried to show by contradiction and wished to have $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)=0 $ but couldn't be able to do that.



    Any help is appreciated. Thank you.










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2






      Let $Omegasubseteq mathbb R^n$ be open , bounded and connected set with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega)>0$. Let $Omega=Omega_1cupOmega_2$ where $Omega_1capOmega_2=emptyset$ with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)>0$ and $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_2)>0.$ Prove that $exists$ $Phiin C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ such that $displaystyle int_{Omega_1}nablaPhi(x)dxneq 0.$




      Here $Phi$ is real valued function and $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ consists of all $C^{infty}(Omega)$ functions which have compact support in $Omega.$



      I tried to show by contradiction and wished to have $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)=0 $ but couldn't be able to do that.



      Any help is appreciated. Thank you.










      share|cite|improve this question
















      Let $Omegasubseteq mathbb R^n$ be open , bounded and connected set with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega)>0$. Let $Omega=Omega_1cupOmega_2$ where $Omega_1capOmega_2=emptyset$ with $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)>0$ and $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_2)>0.$ Prove that $exists$ $Phiin C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ such that $displaystyle int_{Omega_1}nablaPhi(x)dxneq 0.$




      Here $Phi$ is real valued function and $C_c^{infty}(Omega)$ consists of all $C^{infty}(Omega)$ functions which have compact support in $Omega.$



      I tried to show by contradiction and wished to have $mathcal{L^n}(Omega_1)=0 $ but couldn't be able to do that.



      Any help is appreciated. Thank you.







      lebesgue-measure smooth-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 21 at 5:00









      Kemono Chen

      2,152435




      2,152435










      asked Nov 21 at 4:02









      nurun nesha

      9792623




      9792623






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Hint: Assuming $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$ are measurable, then there exists compact set $Fsubset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(F)+varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Likewise, there exists open set $Gsupset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(G)-varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Hence $mathcal{L}^n(GcapOmega_2)$ is small.



          Then by smooth Urysohn's lemma there exists $Phi$ smooth such that $Phi equiv 1$ on $F$ and $Phiequiv 0$ on $G^c$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 5:43










          • @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 5:46












          • But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 6:01










          • @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 6:04











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007248%2fexistence-of-a-c-c-infty-function-phi-s-t-int-nabla-phi-neq-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Hint: Assuming $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$ are measurable, then there exists compact set $Fsubset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(F)+varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Likewise, there exists open set $Gsupset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(G)-varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Hence $mathcal{L}^n(GcapOmega_2)$ is small.



          Then by smooth Urysohn's lemma there exists $Phi$ smooth such that $Phi equiv 1$ on $F$ and $Phiequiv 0$ on $G^c$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 5:43










          • @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 5:46












          • But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 6:01










          • @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 6:04















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Hint: Assuming $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$ are measurable, then there exists compact set $Fsubset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(F)+varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Likewise, there exists open set $Gsupset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(G)-varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Hence $mathcal{L}^n(GcapOmega_2)$ is small.



          Then by smooth Urysohn's lemma there exists $Phi$ smooth such that $Phi equiv 1$ on $F$ and $Phiequiv 0$ on $G^c$.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 5:43










          • @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 5:46












          • But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 6:01










          • @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 6:04













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Hint: Assuming $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$ are measurable, then there exists compact set $Fsubset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(F)+varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Likewise, there exists open set $Gsupset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(G)-varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Hence $mathcal{L}^n(GcapOmega_2)$ is small.



          Then by smooth Urysohn's lemma there exists $Phi$ smooth such that $Phi equiv 1$ on $F$ and $Phiequiv 0$ on $G^c$.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Hint: Assuming $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$ are measurable, then there exists compact set $Fsubset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(F)+varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Likewise, there exists open set $Gsupset Omega_1$ such that $mathcal{L}^n(G)-varepsilon=mathcal{L}^n(Omega_1)$. Hence $mathcal{L}^n(GcapOmega_2)$ is small.



          Then by smooth Urysohn's lemma there exists $Phi$ smooth such that $Phi equiv 1$ on $F$ and $Phiequiv 0$ on $G^c$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Nov 21 at 5:46

























          answered Nov 21 at 5:20









          Jacky Chong

          17.5k21128




          17.5k21128












          • If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 5:43










          • @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 5:46












          • But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 6:01










          • @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 6:04


















          • If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 5:43










          • @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 5:46












          • But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
            – nurun nesha
            Nov 21 at 6:01










          • @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
            – Jacky Chong
            Nov 21 at 6:04
















          If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
          – nurun nesha
          Nov 21 at 5:43




          If we take $Omega=(0,2)=(0,1]cup(1,2)=Omega_1 cup Omega_2$ then $G^c$ will not contain $Omega_2$
          – nurun nesha
          Nov 21 at 5:43












          @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
          – Jacky Chong
          Nov 21 at 5:46






          @nurunnesha Yes. I made the correction.
          – Jacky Chong
          Nov 21 at 5:46














          But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
          – nurun nesha
          Nov 21 at 6:01




          But we need $int_{Omega_1} nabla Phi neq 0.$ So will we have to construct this $Phi$ on $Omega_1setminus F$ in such a way that $nabla Phi$ does not vanish there?
          – nurun nesha
          Nov 21 at 6:01












          @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
          – Jacky Chong
          Nov 21 at 6:04




          @nurunnesha Well. $Phi$ needs to transition from $1$ to $0$ so $nablaPhi$ will not be small. You could also make $F$ smaller.
          – Jacky Chong
          Nov 21 at 6:04


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3007248%2fexistence-of-a-c-c-infty-function-phi-s-t-int-nabla-phi-neq-0%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Puebla de Zaragoza

          Musa